Any opinions on these tires?

[NMuzj100]

Road-Force balancing isn't the be-all end-all but if you are getting the tires balanced anyway (you are) and the shop has a Road-Force machine (they might) then you might as well get them balanced on the road-force machine from the get go. It "may" detect construction defects that are otherwise difficult to diagnose and are better dealt with before the tires have ever been on your vehicle. And you'll get a good balance.

For a little bit about Road-Force balancing ....

Try here

Find out if your shop has a GSP 9700 here ...

Locate a Hunter GSP9700

If you have a lot of time on your hands (to read the tech) and want to really impress (or befuddle, maybe irritate) the shop techs, ask if they are using the Haweka Flange-plate adapters required by Toyota (for their dealers).

Haweka Flange Plate Adapters

 

[C-dog]

I put on some cooper ST's. Not that expensive and look GREAT! My .02

 

[NMuzj100]

For the blizzards I have been driving a Tahoe at work with new Cooper Discovery ATRs. The Tahoe is a rattletrap but the tires are pretty good in the snow. Seem about as good as my REVOs for snow/ice traction.

 

[Jim_Chow]

Aren't the Pro Comp's made by Cooper? The key is NEW tires. My 5 yr old pro comp AT's are extreme weather rated like the BFG AT's, but the rubber has hardened over the years so the traction in rain is terrible. Still about 1/3 or more tread left despite 75K mi on a set of 5. This is one thing that attracts me to the Revo's...they at least claim the rubber is engineered to give good traction as the tire wears, meaning it's probably softer (=fewer miles, but better traction). This seems to be a trade-off with any tire.

 

[cary]

This is one thing that attracts me to the Revo's...they at least claim the rubber is engineered to give good traction as the tire wears, meaning it's probably softer (=fewer miles, but better traction). This seems to be a trade-off with any tire.

It's called multi layer compounding, to give more consistant traction over the tire life. Kind of like this tire has:

Benefit: Long life and increased durability†
Feature: Dual-compound tread

That would be the BFG All Terrain.

 

[NMuzj100]

There is a good arguement for getting a cheaper tire and replacing more often. Rubber deteriorates over time and tires are basically abused. There is also a good arguement for buying the best tire available and replacing relatively often. They are the single most important part of the car performance and safety wise.

I have very little interest in Michelin's 100,000 mile tires. My cruiser is 8 years old and just passed 100k. Would the Michelin baby really want to ride on 8 year old tires.

 

[tech_dog]

I'd put more weight into the preferences in this room than on the tire rack survey, assuming you plan on wheeling your vehicle. I don't think the average person can really judge tire performance, unless it's really, really bad.

There are a half dozen or so tires that get a lot of positive comments in these rooms. You have a trade off in noise and capabilities, and some are better in snow. You wouldn't be going wrong with any of them.

I'm very happy with my Terra Grapplers, and I bought them because of the tires, not because of the lower price.

 

[cary]

There is a good arguement for getting a cheaper tire and replacing more often. Rubber deteriorates over time and tires are basically abused. There is also a good arguement for buying the best tire available and replacing relatively often. They are the single most important part of the car performance and safety wise.

I have very little interest in Michelin's 100,000 mile tires. My cruiser is 8 years old and just passed 100k. Would the Michelin baby really want to ride on 8 year old tires.

I'd put more weight into the preferences in this room than on the tire rack survey, assuming you plan on wheeling your vehicle. I don't think the average person can really judge tire performance, unless it's really, really bad.

Responding to both of these:

1) I believe it is best to start with quality tires. While tires do deteriate over time, the newer compounds (which contain little in the way of natural rubber) are much more stable and break down much slower than tires did even 10 years ago. That said, when I was offered $50 a tire for my 2/3's worn BFG A/T by the local tire dealer, I jumped and bought new ones. There is no question that new tires are better than worn.

2) It is very hard to evaluate the feedback people provide on tires. Most people lack the skill and the technical terms to adequately and accurately report their findings on how tires handle. Driving hard is a relative term, as is heavy off roading, heavy snow, cold, hot, rocky, heavy rain, etc. As eluded to above, most of the time people will find even an inferior new tire better than their well worn tire, simply because a new tire is always better than an old one. I do find the tire rack feedback usefull for things like 1) tire wear, 2) selecting tires that should be weeded out because of consistant complaints (i.e. quality issues or handling in a certain condition; see the Bridgestone RE-92 for a perfect example).

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Responding to both of these:

1) I believe it is best to start with quality tires. While tires do deteriate over time, the newer compounds (which contain little in the way of natural rubber) are much more stable and break down much slower than tires did even 10 years ago. That said, when I was offered $50 a tire for my 2/3's worn BFG A/T by the local tire dealer, I jumped and bought new ones. There is no question that new tires are better than worn.

Discount couldn't balance my chewed up 315's in the rear any longer. Because I had warranty I got two FREE. Then, they gave me trade ($50 each) on the other two. What a deal!

So, I got 4 new 315 AT KO. Well...2 years later....you should see how destroyed all for our. I pray for no balance or just going in and seeing what they offer me. If it's $50 a tire I'm in AGAIN.

NOTHING is more important than tires! (God forbid when I need to buy them for the Rx8. )

 

[e9999]

the Nitto TGs came out on top in Consumer Reports

 

[tech_dog]

the Nitto TGs came out on top in Consumer Reports

And were the best in ice, if I remember correctly.

 

[cary]

the Nitto TGs came out on top in Consumer Reports

Yea, but once again they didn't test the BFG A/T which is a far superior tire to the rugged trail that they keep including.

 

[EdsCruisin]

Several of you keep mentioning how the tires are the most important part of the vehicle, but I believe brakes are right up there, if not more important. When you blow that tire, it's the brakes that are going to save your butt, not the tires.

I agree though that tires are pretty much personal preference. There are reputations, like Coopers are noisy and hard, BFG's are wonderful forever, Michelins are soft riding, etc., but unless you need a special purpose tire like a mudder or highway tire, most anything on the "averages" will be more than adequate for the majority of drivers, vehicles and occassional special use. Shoot they are selling F350 4x4's with all season radials off the showroom floor. The reality is that we really don't "need" the AT tires. But they sure are nice for the playtime!

 

[ronin-0707]

of those three choices I would go with the Kumho's
at 25k mine are barely broken in, but i have the venture at825

when I go bigger it will either be the kumho's or nitto tg

when I went from the stock michelins (granted they were worn) the car tracked better and was quieter
don't let the low prices on kumho's fool you these are quality tires see the reviews for their other tires

 

[cary]

Several of you keep mentioning how the tires are the most important part of the vehicle, but I believe brakes are right up there, if not more important. When you blow that tire, it's the brakes that are going to save your butt, not the tires.

I agree though that tires are pretty much personal preference. There are reputations, like Coopers are noisy and hard, BFG's are wonderful forever, Michelins are soft riding, etc., but unless you need a special purpose tire like a mudder or highway tire, most anything on the "averages" will be more than adequate for the majority of drivers, vehicles and occassional special use. Shoot they are selling F350 4x4's with all season radials off the showroom floor. The reality is that we really don't "need" the AT tires. But they sure are nice for the playtime!

Brakes are extremely important, but the last thing you do when you blow a tire is stand on the brakes. Doing so will drastically shift the weight on the vehicle potentially causing an accident or rollover, especially if it is a front tire blowout. If you have a blowout, the proper way to deal with it, is to as smoothly as possible roll out of the throttle, keep the vehicle going straight and coast to a stop.

I would hardly cite what Ford puts on their cars for OEM tires as an authority for what is good. This is the same company that used those crappy firestones to save a few bucks. For decades the domestic manufactures have used cheap tires to save a buck, while the import manufactures have used top quality tires (i.e. even Honda on their base Accords would always put Michelin or Bridgestones on them).

Yes 99% of the time any old tire will do, but that 1% of the time when you are at the limit, because you need to swerve to avoid an accident, need to emergency brake, hit a puddle that is deeper than you thought, it will make all the difference in the world. It is then that a good tire that doesn't roll under, that breaks away smoothly instead of abruptly, that allows you to reign the vehicle back in when it breaks away, that has a little better hydroplane resistance, makes all the difference in the world.

As Roger Waters sang "At the moment when the brakes lock, and your sliding towards the big truck, you stretch the frozen moments with your fear." It is at those times a good set of tires can make all the difference over a so-so set.

 

[cary]

don't let the low prices on kumho's fool you these are quality tires see the reviews for their other tires

Not to rag on the Kuhmo's but they are a second tier tire. Every comparison I have ever seen of them when it is a straight up blind comparision (i.e. car and driver, tire rack tests), has shown them to be good, but not in the same league as the equivilant offerings from Michelin, Bridgestone, and other top tier companies. In Car and Driver's recent test of high performance tires, they tested the Kuhmo's, they came in last place. Same for Tire Rack's comparison of Three Budget A/T Tires, and that didn't even include the premium tires like the Revo A/T or BFG A/T.

They are not junk by any means, but you are giving up something for your savings.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/TireTestServlet?tireMake=Kumho

 

[EdsCruisin]

Lest we not forget that Bridgestone is Firestone. I had Firestone 500's when they were recalled and the 721's when they were recalled. Both were excellent tires, but apparently with defects. I had a bubble in one 721, but no other problems. What kind of quality is going to come from the Goodyear plants now that the pissed-off union workers are back in business? What it shows you is that even first tier products have issues too. Although I love my Revo's, I shopped around before I decided on them and made a personal choice, rather than follow market hype on name brands. There are many good tires out there.

 

[cary]

Bridgestone is not Firestone any more than Michelin is Falken. Yes Bridgestone owns Firestone, but they are distinct companies with distinct product lines.

Yes any manufacture can have issues with a product, but I would rather take my chances on a product that has stricter quality control and standards to begin with.

 

[EdsCruisin]

last word on firestone

Bridgestone is not Firestone any more than Michelin is Falken. Yes Bridgestone owns Firestone, but they are distinct companies with distinct product lines.

Yes any manufacture can have issues with a product, but I would rather take my chances on a product that has stricter quality control and standards to begin with.

Yes, I am a stubborn fool....

Read up on this:

http://www.bridgestone-firestone.com/about/index_history.asp?id=bfhistory
"In 1983, Bridgestone established its first U.S. production base by purchasing a Firestone truck tire plant in LaVergne, Tenn. This plant continues..."

"One of the first steps taken by the newly formed company was to build a new truck tire plant in Warren County, Tenn. The Warren County plant was completed in 1990. That same year, Bridgestone and Firestone operations in the Americas were consolidated as Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. As part of the integration with Bridgestone’s existing U.S. operations, Bridgestone Firestone moved its headquarters from Akron to Nashville in 1992.

In August 1997, Bridgestone Firestone announced that it would build a $435 million passenger and light truck tire plant in Aiken County, S.C. The plant began shipping tires in March 1999, and its almost 1000 team members currently produce more than 23,000 tires per day. A $24.5 million expansion of the facility was completed in December 2000. The state-of-the-art facility represents the latest tire manufacturing technology, including Bridgestone Firestone’s ACTAS, which stands for Automated Continuous Tire Assembly System. The company currently operates 15 tire plants in the Americas, with eight located in the United States."


One company, one operation, combined plants.

 

[cary]

I'm am not arguing that Bridgestone and Firestone are the same company, I am arguing that the products they produce are not the same. Arguing that any Bridgestone Tire is the same as a Firestone tire is like arguing that a Toyota Highlander is the same as a Scion XC. Yes Toyota makes both of them, but they are distinct products.